About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN2 20
MSNBC 12
MSNBCW 12
CSPAN 7
WETA 4
WHUT (Howard University Television) 4
KQED (PBS) 3
KRCB (PBS) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
KCSM (PBS) 1
KGO (ABC) 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 83
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 83 (some duplicates have been removed)
was meandering toward ending the war in afghanistan and allowing the pentagon and you have to remember when you're looking at the pentagon, you're looking at an institution that has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur. it takes the pentagon a long time to put something together, such as a timetable for withdrawal. all obama has to do, and i know it is not that simple, but i would look at the gorbachev experience. he came in 1985, he gave a speech in 1986 denouncing afghanistan as a bleeding wound. he had secretly told schultz at the military was going to get one year to turn it around. and that they wouldn't be able to. he announced a timetable, and then he was gone and 89. we need to do something similar, the military had its chances, we had 11 commanders in afghanistan in 11 years, take a look at this book by the general, which devotes a lot of attention to this. that is not a war where we can be successful. that is not in the military we have. there is no military that has ever been successful with counterinsurgency. not only that, but they have an ally in pakistan where we survived with bil
into words and the the war afghanistan and he's allowing the pentagon and you have to remember when you're looking at the pentagon you are looking at an institution that has defined motor skills and a dinosaur. if you take the pentagon a long time to put something together all but obama has to do and i know it isn't this simple but i would look at the gorbachev experience. he came out of 1985 he gave the secret speech in 1986 denouncing afghanistan to his fellow bureau colleagues as a bleeding wound he had the moxie secretly tell shultz we were getting out that the military was going to get one year to turnaround and the wouldn't feel to. they announced a timetable and they were gone. we need to do something similar. they had their chances we had 11 commanders and afghanistan in 11 years take a look at thomas rex book the generals that devotes a lot of attention to this isn't a war we can be successful and the kind of military we have. there is no military that had ever been successful in the counterinsurgency where they have a sanctuary. not only did it have a sanctuary but in outlinin
. >> chuck hagel and the battle for the pentagon. >> the good news is, for the verse time in many years, republicans and democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together. >> the immigration problem. has somebody been reading exit polls? >> too many children areying too many children. >> also, the fight over gonds. >> law-abiding gun owners will not accept the blame for acts of violence or deranged criminals. >> the word on hillary in 2016. will she or won't she? >> i have no plans to run. >> thursday was not a good day for chuck hagel, president obama's tourist to be his next defense secretary. his old friend and fellow vietnam veteran john mccain jump all over hagel for opposing the surge in iraq. >> were you correct or incorrect when you said the search would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? correct or incorrect? yes or no? are you going tonswer the queson, nator hage the question is, were you right or wrong? i would like to answer whether you were right or wrong. and you are fe to elaborate. >> i am not going to give you a yes or no answ
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is that -- mentors than i have had with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was
serve and the defense policy board of the pentagon as co-chairman of the president's intelligence advisory board, not to mention all the things that have been said about his service in vietnam and his heroism as an enlisted man. so i think -- i understand that people disagree with his position on certain issues and therefore everybody has the right to vote in the way it they say, but the concern that i have is the suggestion that this man who has served his country really since he was a young man and it listed in vietnam is not qualified to be the secretary of defense, i think is just not accurate and reflects certainly a different understanding of his background and his experience that i have. so i intend to vote for him. think he will be an excellent secretary of defense, and the help of we will confirm of. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it think the members of the committee. first, let me say up front that i think all of us deeply respect the senators service to his country in vietnam and service in this body. we know that there are always difficult decision
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
are to buy the pentagon didn't show you any video of things that miss. that is bad pr. and the percentage of weapons that were smart weapons in the first gulf war but infinitely more than anything the iraqis had was remarkably small compared to the impression the pentagon gave them a military briefing for the alicia pictures of smart bombs and smart missiles and things fly into windows. that was the percentage actually expended. so i don't think this is a revolution in military affairs so much as a vivid demonstration of just how proficient the united states was in waging war, especially can do this proficient adversary. but it also is a military affairs in a fundamentalist about is the car still has a boat here and the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal and therefore the military plan made that involve smart and weapons were designed with a traditional military conclusion, which in truth is not revolutionary at all, getting the enemy to do what she wanted. i can't see it as fares. and getting assigned from the back right of time, but i do want to give -- >> yet, let randy
the organization would fallen apart. think about any organization. i work until the pentagon it would have made it better. so -- [laughter] we realize the you have to go after the people who do the work. the people who do logistics, communications, pass information, build car bombs, communicate. so you to take them out. so we came out with the strategy. and philadelphia love this. it's like rocky and apollo. we're going hit them in the midsection and hit them a lot. from august of 2004 when we did 18 rides, two years later, same month, same force, same fight we were doing 300 raids a month. that's ten a night. now, if you stop and say you ten a night. that's a lot. that's impressive. that means every raid guy on the force is going a raid at least one every night. every pilot is flying one or two raids every night. and these raids are not patrols inspect is not a -- these are going in the door somebody is getting shot. extraordinary. and to do that, though, you can't use previous systems. one you have to be able to bring in the intelligence on the industrial scale. you have to get to the point w
to start with a washington battle on full display this week when the president's pick to head the pentagon, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of cou
is taken out does it get worse? i worked at the pentagon, it would have been a lot better. we realize you got to go after the people who do the work, people who do logistics', communication, pass information, build car bombs, communicate, take those out so we came up with a strategy. i used to tell people it is like rocky balboa and apollo creed. we hit them in the midsection and it them aloft. from august of 20 . from august of 2004 when we did 18 raids, we doing 300 raids a month, ten a night. every raid guy on the force is going on one raid every night. every pilot is flying one or two raids every night. these raids are not patrols. these are going in the door, someone is getting shot. extraordinary. to do that you can't use previous systems. you have to bring in intelligence on an industrial scale, we got to the point where instead of plastic bags of information on a target we would start to exploit their computers and biometric data, it would be pumped back to west virginia from the target to see if we ever had that person before and if we ever had any dealings with him, we would mov
but the second two points the pentagon did not show you any video the percentage of footprints that were smart well infinitely more than what the iraqis had was small compared to the impression the pentagon gave we're the only showed pictures, that was a tiny percentage. so i don't think this was a revolution as you pointed out just how proficient united states was in waging war with a less proficient adversary. in the more philosophical and fundamental way that the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal so the military planning with the air war were designed with a traditional military conclusion which in truth was not revolutionary at all so i cannot see it in revolutionary affairs i do see we're running at a time by one to give him a chance to comment. >> as i alluded to the revolutionary of military affairs the something that came at the time goldwater nichols was passed to join the military and was all that was talked about back in the '80s and what it meant to me is finally, coming at a vietnam , we had thinkers in the military said said it worked through what it takes to wag
remarks. the pentagon has moved expand its cyber security efforts. i have to talk about colorado. the air force academy is well positioned to train those new experts. would you talk a little more on your take on cyber security and what sort of resources we need. >> i've been to those facilities in colorado a few times and don't know as much about them as you do, but i am familiar with them. they are essential to our national security. cyber, i believe represents as big a threat to the security of this country as any one specific threat. for all the reasons this committee understands. it's an insidious, quiet, kind of a threat that we have never quite seen before. it can paralyze a nation in a second. not just a power grid or banking system. but it can knock out satellites. it can take down computers on all our carrier battle ships and do tremendous damage to our national security apparatus. that is the larger threat. but when you start defining it down, this body, i know. i watched it. it went through a pretty agonizing three months at the end of 2012 trying to find a bill they could agre
level that he had been waterboarded. he had practiced at the pentagon. he had been working on this. but when he referred to containment on iran rather than prevention of nuclear weapons and had to be corrected and then corrected again, a note was passed to him, and then the chairman helpfully said to him, containment is not a policy at all. that is not our policy. that is such a critical mistake on an issue that he knew that he was going to be asked about. we knew that he was going to have to explain the, quote, jewish lobby and take that back and some of the other things. the way he did it didn't seem crisp. and then when ted cruz wheeled in the tv screen to play an al jazeera talk show and put him on the spot or how he defended israel or didn't defend israel in response to a question on a talk show, it would be like somebody saying to you or mika, joe, you were on c-span ten years ago, and what did you say to someone who called in? that was very, very tough. >> that was sort of my point at the top. >> it's interesting that you had said, mika, yesterday as we were going to a meeti
? >> at the pentagon. >> this is the first time hearing of this. when did this happen? did they make this decision on the cruise ship? >> no. no, they didn't. it actually happened in washington. >> really? that's fascinating. >> which is its own permanent port-a-potty. >> okay. mika, for those of us that were just sitting there looking at a cruise ship for 24 hours instead of following the real news, why don't you catch us up with what actually happened yesterday in the news. >> republicans blocked a vote yesterday that would have ended the debate and allowed for a final decision one way or another. democrats fell just shy of the votes needed to advance the process. something president obama chalked up to partisan politics. >> there's nothing in the constitution that says that somebody should get 60 votes. there are only a handful of instances in which there's been any kind of filibuster of anybody for a cabinet position in our history. and what seems to be happening -- and this has been growing over time -- is the republican minority in the senate seem to think that the rule now is that you have
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to this article from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would provide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the
-on-one meetings can overcome any mistakes that he made. chris lawrence, cnn, the pentagon. >> the question is, is his confirmation in jeopardy? >> the democrats think they still have the votes there, but most people say hagel did not do anything to help himself. all of the reporters, dana bash reporting that they were stunned in his performance. a 7 1/2 hour hearing and it was tough. >> but it was rude at times as well, right? >> some say that senators went too far, maybe that will backfire. little to help himself. >> i read he was like a wiebel. he wobbled but he didn't fall down. >>> six minutes past the hour. when it comes to jobs, did we sprint or stumble out of the gate. we'll find out when the january jobs report comes out a little more than three hours from now. they expect to see maintained momentum, predicting 165,000 net new jobs added. up slightly from the 155,000 added in december. they expect the unemployment rate to stay at 7.8%. >> of course, christine romans here to break down the numbers as soon as they come out. that will happen at 8:30 live on "starting point." >>> for the
to be running the pentagon. >> sam? >> well, i slightly disagree with robert. >> i thought you might. >> you know, actually it's funny because some of these questions did produce interesting, illustrative answers. for instance, when ron johnson got hillary clinton to say what difference does it make? well, it does make a difference. the problem i found with the questions was they ended up stepping on the news. they became so demonstrative and so theatrical that they ended up stealing the spotlight from the answers. that did a disservice in some respects to the question. >> is the real story the feeder of the questions or hagel's fumbling performance? i think it's the latter. i think hagel had a dismal performance at that hearing. did he seem competent to run the pentagon? there were a lot of questions even among democrats after that hearing whether he's ready. >> i don't disagree with that. i think hagel had a really poor performance. what i'm saying is for these senators -- if you looked at what ted cruz was asking about, association with an israeli diplomat that basically 99.9% of the coun
your perspective on the pentagon's role in securing our embassies? we just had a near suicide attack, if you will, suicide bomber, at an embassy in turkey just last week. what can be done more than what has been done now? >> the important things to do are first of all you've got to build up the host country capacity. in the end, these embassies do depend on host country, the details that provide security. so you've got to try to develop that. >> this shouldn't be more marines? >> no, no. let me get the rest of the part of it. you have to harden these embassies as much as possible. and third, we have been working with the ste department to determine whether additional marines ought to be assigned to that area. and in the end, the final alternative is our ability to respond in having our troops in a position where they can respond quickly. but i have to tell you, a lot of that still is dependent on whether intelligence tells us that we've got a big problem, and gives us enough warning so that we can get to the place to respond. >> did you have enough time to get there in time? >> no. >
alv vast network of oldot colleagues throughout the pentagon bureaucracy. he's reaching out to them.s he deliberately forms a back v channel. he cultivates this woman in the white house named megyn to o'sullivan who is president bush's every chief adviser in the national security council. he sees she's kind of wavering. l security council and seized she is wavering and they're talking on the phone practically every day. this is outrageous. a three-star general from fort wet weather worsened talking on the phone every day with the senior advisor to the president of the united states general casey you is a four-star general commanding troops he says we only need one more brigade so those are arguments why it isn't enough so when it comes, by the way it is not paula bridewell but strictly professional. but subverting the chain of command he always has been off the reservation guy to do what is necessary here but at the same time a civilian analyst used to teach history he rode a steady advocating the surge at the american enterprise institute. said to get this into the warehouse into t
, a member of the bush pentagon's defense policy board, michael hastings author of the new digital book "panic 2012, the sublime and terrifying inside story of obama's final campaign ♪ ♪ barbara siegel, also washington correspondent for the middle east website al monitor.com. great to have you all here. >> thank you. >> so i am -- well, where to start? i think the lessons unlearned to me was the most troubling. it seemed to me we had a moment in 2008 particularly in which president obama articulated this kind of alternative foreign policy vision and did so quite forthrightly. for instance, negotiations with iran and ahmadinejad. and somehow four years later, we've moved backwards, right? the old -- i guess as we've gotten further away from the debacle of iraq, as that's more remote in people's memory, there's more and more the sense of iraq ended up okay and you saw this -- i thought it was so interesting, it was the relitigation of the surge. because that in some ways is this key narrative plot point that somehow redeem tess entire war. and so you saw, for instance, john mccain, in
:00 today a secretary of defense. these across-the-board cuts are going to be very difficult. the pentagon needs a leader to oversee and manage historic cuts and ensure they're made in a responsible way. just a minute about senator hagel. he was an enlisted man in the vietnam war. he didn't have to go. he enlisted. the story of senator hagel is not a legend; it's true. he was an heroic warrior, an infantryman. he saved his brother' brother's. when he was a senator -- he saved his brother's life. when he was a senator here, the picture on his wall was of he and his brother in vietnam on a carrier. he's proud of his service. he should be. wounded two times, an infantry squad leader, a man of integrity and dedication. he has a deep understanding of our national security establishment. gained not only from his military service but as a united states no member o senator, meme foreign intelligence committee. he's been a member of the president of the united states's foreign intelligence advise i have board. at a time when america faces so many threats, mr. president, i've outlined just a few of
is confirmed and sworn in." close quote. so if anybody's under any misapprehension, i believe the pentagon press secretary has made that clear, we have a secretary of defense. he has not resigned, and he will continue to serve until such time as his successor is sworn in. and i would just say again to my friend, the senator from illinois, the assistant majority leader, we all know what a filibuster is. a filibuster is designed to kill a nomination or to defeat legislation, as the senator from tennessee said. and i would say this is equivalent to what happened back in 2005, and i have a letter here, mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and i will refer to it. this is a letter signed by chris dodd, our former colleague who served on the foreign relations committee, and joe biden when he was the ranking member of the foreign relations committee back in 2005. it's entitled "dear democratic colleague, we write to urge you to oppose the cloture on the bolton nomination tonight. w
get it worse? i worked in the pentagon. it would have made it a lot better. so we realized you really have to go after the people who do the work, people who do logistics, communications, pass information, do car bombs, you have to take those out. we came up with a strategy, philadelphia would love this. it is like rocky balboa and apollo creed. we'll hit them in the midsection and hit them a lot. from august of 2004 when we did 18 raids, two years, later, same month, same force, same fight, we were doing 300 raids a month. that was ten a night. now, if you stop and you say, well, ten a night, that's a lot, that's impressive. that means every raid guy on the force is going on a raid at least one raid every night. every pilot's flying one or 2:00 raids every night. and these raids are not patrols. this is not with foot, these are going in the door, somebody is getting shot. extraordinary, and to do that though you can't use previous systems. one you've got to be able to bring in this intelligence on an industrial scale. you have got to be able -- we got to the point where instead of th
effect. the pentagon needs a seasoned leader to diplomat these cuts, cuts for which an overwhelmingly majority of republicans in congress voted. the so-called sequester, mr. president, was supported by 174 republicans in the house of representatives, 28 republicans here in the senate, 60% and 75% of the two republican bodies in this country. we have a balanced proposal to replace those across-the-board cuts for this year with smart spending reductions which must continue, a measure to close corporate tax loopholes and wasteful subsidies. and revenue from the wealthiest among us, americans making millions of dollars each year. it's critical that the republicans and democrats come together to find a balanced way to avert these drastic cuts. the consequence of the so-called sequester cuts are real not only for national defense but for millions of american families and businesses alike. three-quarters of a million jobs, 750,000 jobs, mr. president, are at stake. across the country tens of thousands of teachers, including thousands of workers with disabled children would be laid off. 70,00
, first of all, the pentagon didn't show you any video of things that missed. that's bad pr. and the percentage of weapons that were smart weapons in the first gulf war while infinitely more than anything the iraqis had was remarkably small compared to the impression the pentagon gave in their military briefings where they'd only show pictures of smart bombs and smart missiles and things flying through windows. that was a very, very tiny percentage of the munitions actually expended. so i don't think this was so much a revolution in military affairs so much as a vivid demonstration, as you point out, of just how proficient the united states was in waging war especially against a less proficient adversary. but it also was military affairs in a more philosophical, fundamental way, and that is claus wits still has a vote here, and the ultimate goal of the conflict was a political goal and, therefore, the military planning and the air war being a classic case in point of this were designed with a traditional military conclusion which in truth was not revolutionary at all which w
a vast network of old colleagues throughout the pentagon bureaucracy. is reaching out to them. he deliberately forms a back channel. he cultivates this woman in the white house named meghan o'sullivan who was president bush's chief adviser on iraq in the national security council. he sees she's waving from the policy, he cultivates her. they're talking on the phone practically every day. now, picture this. this is kind of average. his petraeus, a three-star general in fort leavenworth. is talking on the phone everyday with the senior advisor to the president of united states. she will be asking him, general casey who is a four-star general actually commanding troop in iraq if general casey as we only need one more brigade, what do you think with an petraeus would muster these arguments that she could funnel to her seniors on why this really isn't enough. so, you know, when he comes to washington and meets in restaurants -- by the way, this is not, this is strictly professional. can you imagine, this is someone, essentially subverting the chain of command, getting his own views acr
military community where he plans to highlight painful cuts they say for the pentagon and the u.s. navy. but republican leaders calling on the president to quote, stop campaigning and help them solve the problem. but at the moment, there are no meetings planned between any of these sides, the house, the senate, the white house and they're taking friday off as of now. martha: all right. well the looming budget cuts were high on the agenda when the president sat down with the national governors association yesterday. arizona governor jan brewer went "on the record" with greta van susteren to get her impressions exactly what happened at that meeting. here's that. >> you know, he definitely says he wants to work together but obviously he doesn't want to compromise one little bit. bottom line he wants to raise taxes. and he doesn't want to cut. i think the american people believed, that the time now is to start cutting the budget. martha: so when it came to compromising governor brewer went on to say that the president said that the elections were basically behind him and that he was going t
, "for too much longer." we know high-level israeli officials are visiting and talking with the pentagon counterpart. now hillary clinton is saying in the clearest way yet the time is running out. in other words, action might be coming. if that context israeli strikes in syria make sense. it would degrade retaliatory ability of iran and allies. all of this could, i emphasize could, mean the u.s. is now moving toward the time frame benjamin netanyahu israeli prime minister laid out in the speech you will remember at the u.n. last september. he said by next spring at the latest, next summer iran could be moving to the final stage. we could be moving toward sanction. >> shepard: thanks. now there is word that iran plans to speed up the program tone rich uranium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons. "associated press" reporting today iranian officials told the u.n. atomic watchdog agency they want to install thousands of new machines. machines that work up to three times faster than the ones they have now. irainiance claim they want nuclear fuel for only energy and scientific purposes. searc
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 83 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)